Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.

"...it's not the training to be mean but the training to be kind that is used to keep us leashed best." ~ Black Dog Red

"In case you haven't recognized the trend: it proceeds action, dissent, speech." ~ davidly, on how wars get done

"...What sort of meager, unerotic existence must a man live to find himself moved to such ecstatic heights by the mundane sniping of a congressional budget fight. The fate of human existence does not hang in the balance. The gods are not arrayed on either side. Poseiden, earth-shaker, has regrettably set his sights on the poor fishermen of northern Japan and not on Washington, D.C. where his ire might do some good--I can think of no better spot for a little wetland reclamation project, if you know what I mean. The fight is neither revolution nor apocalypse; it is hardly even a fight. A lot of apparatchiks are moving a lot of phony numbers with more zeros than a century of soccer scores around, weaving a brittle chrysalis around a gross worm that, some time hence, will emerge, untransformed, still a worm." ~ IOZ

Jan 28, 2013

What I Prefer

What I prefer is to see women and children cut their attackers down.
This is not to imply that they should not do the thousand other things
needed to liberate themselves from the system of men, to challenge the
assumptions about femininity and masculinity which shuffle people into
oppressive norms, to create spaces which exclude the gender most likely
to act as tormentor, abuser, patriarch, raper and rent taker.

In
any system where sex* is rent, where childhood is debt and where gender
is a distinction intimately tied to notions of property, propriety and
right conduct, revolutionary violence is appropriate. It may not be the
only response; it needn't be exclusive. But, it is justified.

If
we can accept as generally true that labor must seize the means of
production, and that morality is a limitation imposed from above in
order to prevent just such a revolt, we must of necessity also concede
that those who suffer the consequences of the domination class' control
of property, family, wealth and gender itself have something akin to an
inalienable freedom to harm those who would subject them to this system
of alienation, and that any attempt to moralize or condemn this harm is
expressly and intimately a decision to maintain oppression.

What
I prefer is for women and children, for all those who have been
feminized from without as a prelude to their submission, to organize as Furies, as winged erinyes, and
for a period of no less than a decade, to have free reign upon the
agents of their misery, until men understand in their marrow that what
came before comes no longer, ever again.

What we prefer is to see the German people cut their attackers down. This is not to imply that they should not do the thousand other things needed to liberate themselves from the system of the Jews, to challenge the assumptions about living space and Versailles which shuffle the volk into oppressive norms, to create spaces which exclude der Jude which has always been most likely to act as tormentor, abuser, patriarch, raper and rent taker.

In any system where reparations have interest, where Aryanhood is debt slavery to der Jude and where the German is tied to Jewish notions of property, propriety and right conduct, revolutionary violence is appropriate. It may not be the only response; it needn't be exclusive. But, it is justified.

If we can accept as generally true that the people must seize the means of production, and that morality is a limitation imposed from the Jew in order to prevent just such a revolt, we must of necessity also concede that those who suffer the consequences of the Jewish control of property, family, wealth and gender itself have something akin to an inalienable freedom to harm those who would subject them to this system of alienation, and that any attempt to moralize or condemn this harm is expressly and intimately a decision to maintain oppression.

What I prefer is for the German people, for all those who have been oppressed from without as a prelude to their submission, to organize as valkyries, as a blitzkrieg, and for a period of no less than a decade, to have free reign upon the agents of their misery, until the Jews understand in their marrow that what came before comes no longer, ever again.

As the above passage from Hitler shows us, we must always be vigilant in ensuring that evil, discriminatory fascists never again gain power. We must try to peacefully prevent hateful bigots like Hitler from influencing the world.

Presume that once, in the history of Germany, a person who self-identified as being Jewish loaned money to a person who self-identified as being non-Jewish. Presume that the loan was unfair.

Presume that this happened many times.

Does that, then, make Hitler's policies acceptable?

No, it does not, because Hitler was collectively punishing a group based on the actions of one/a few.

Your primary flaw is not in advocating violence, but in advocating collective punishment. Punishing all [members of set] for the perceived sins (or actual sins) of some [members of set] is the stereotyping and bigotry that underscores patriarchy.

If you want to critique something--say, porn--find an actual producer or production company that does something wrong, and write about how bad they are. Slurring all "males" because some wealthy men and women produce pornography that you find offensive is wrong.

It's tempting. It's simple. I understand the allure. If a black male president heartlessly orders the drone killing of three little Pakistani girls, it can be tempting to look at the murderer's hateful face and say, "I hate black people." But it would be wrong. It would be unfair to tar other black people with culpability for Obama's murders.

You might respond to that by saying "Patriarchy is so evil as an institution that men are benefited by it. Therefore stereotyping and slurring men is okay."

But, Hitler could point to generations of wealthy Jewish moneylenders to justify his group-hatred. Pakistani tribal leaders could point to generations of conflict with Muslim-surnamed black men west of Pakistan to justify group-hatred of African blacks for Obama's crimes.

Neither "structural" argument is appropriate. If you don't like patriarchy, don't pick up its foul tools and use them against a different group, no matter how good it feels.

Mein Kampf could be altered by replacing "Jews" in Hitler's writing with "bank loan officers who engage in a systematic pattern of unfair trade practices," and your writing could be easily altered by replacing "men" with "patriarchs." Then, the policy wouldn't be genocidal, and it wouldn't be collective punishment. It would be focused on choice and behavior, rather than birth identity.

Anne Frank shouldn't have been lumped in with Hitler's anger at the reparations of the Great War, and some poor homeless guy in Little Rock shouldn't be lumped in with Hillary Clinton's anger over having lost that essay writing contest in her second year at law school. Men can't help being men, and ethnic Jews can't help being ethnic Jews, which is why targeting punitive policies at group membership based on birth is collective punishment.

Let's quote a woman, rather than a "feminist man," who actually knows what she's talking about:

Asia Carrera: There's a reason why you always see the same guys over and over in every movie. It's because there are very, very few guys who can perform on command under the demanding, grueling circumstances of shooting a movie. Imagine: it's 5am, you're exhausted, 15 crew guys are grouchy and waiting on you to perform so they can go home. They're giving you nasty looks while you're trying to get hard in the freezing cold, buck naked, on your aching knees on the cold metal hood of a car. The girl, who isn't even very attractive close up, is off set with her boyfriend, smoking a cigarette until you're ready. You're wanking in the cold with an audience of 15 impatient guys, knowing that if you don't get hard, word will spread instantly that you are not reliable. And if you don't come on cue, forcing them to reshoot the scene, you will never be hired again.

Asia, again: This must be the only place in the world where guys get paid less than girls, and we call all the shots. (feminists take note!) Guys get a couple hundred per scene. New girls can get between five and six hundred for a boy/girl scene, and the rate jumps as you become a bigger star. Contract girls get paid by the movie, instead of by the scene, and they make thousands of dollars per movie.

She...Her...a muse, her own self, that sweetness on the morning dew side of the leaf...

I don't kid myself that I've stumbled upon a unique insight and I have little doubt that someone has already written or said this better than I. Five minutes after I hit the "publish" button, I'll probably regret the choice of words more than I already do now - because it's difficult to get my head outside of English language usage, to comment on a problem with that usage, whilst using the English language to do so.

In the interest of not making more of an ass of myself than necessary, I've pared a very long thesis down to a paragraph:

I find it troubling that, using English, I have very limited choice in expressing how I relate to people with whom I have ongoing interaction. If I want to reference the nature of my relations with the woman who has challenged me to grow in ways I never imagined possible, the woman who howled with a primal, gorgeous, earth shattering, mother bear of a refrain, transcending pain and pleasure in act of creation to which I will never be immediate party, who has with her defiant and proud womanhood still intact forged a family out of disparate parts - I have to write "my wife." I have to reduce her to property. That really pisses me off. I don't own her. I don't fucking want the title or the claim. I don't want to express possession, simply to refer to her (without writing a discursive dissertation). I don't like one bit that the short hand for "association" in English is expressed in the possessive. I don't own my wife or my children. They're not mine.

So, fuck you Latin and Germanic branches of the Indo-European language group.

Until today I had the same attitude towards Robert Greenwald as I do Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and most other representatives of the w...

"Now assholes and bureaucrats, take my advice...You’d better walk clear and you’d better talk nice...‘Cause we’re hot on your trail and we’re not on your side...Better forward your mail, shoot your wounded and ride...‘Cause when we’ve got all you desk jockeys safe behind bars...Claimed some of the neon, and some of the cars...Me and Billy and Oscar and the girls and guitars...Will be down in the gutter, looking up at the stars..." ~ James Luther Dickinson, The Ballad of Billy and Oscar